Fostering Dialogue in a Divided Education System: What We Learned from Evaluating the DIP Program

Pupils engaging in a shared creative activity that fostered interaction, mutual learning, and trust across communities.

What We Learned from Evaluating the DIP Program

In societies marked by deep social, cultural, and religious divisions, education plays a critical role in shaping attitudes, relationships, and future coexistence. The Dialogue and Identity Program (DIP), implemented by the Rossing Center for Education and Dialogue and the TALI Education Fund, was one such initiative. Running since 2006 and endorsed by the Israeli Ministry of Education, DIP brought together Jewish, Christian, and Muslim schoolchildren to learn about each other’s cultures, religions, and daily lives through structured and facilitated encounters.

Funded by the Porticus Foundation between 2021 and 2023, Key Impact conducted an external evaluation of DIP, accompanying the program over two consecutive school years. The evaluation assessed the program’s effectiveness and its contribution to changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among schoolchildren and teaching staff.

The Program at a Glance

DIP was designed as a class-twinning program implemented in paired Jewish and Arab schools. It targeted students aged 10–13 and combined several core components, including capacity building for teachers, uninational preparation sessions, binational encounters between pupils, visits to houses of worship, and the engagement of school leadership. The program was grounded in intergroup contact theory, emphasizing the potential of structured, positive interaction to reduce prejudice and foster mutual understanding.

The Evaluation Approach: A Quasi-Experimental Design

To assess DIP’s effectiveness, Key Impact applied a longitudinal and quasi-experimental evaluation design. This combined approach compared pupils participating in DIP with pupils from parallel classes in the same schools who did not take part in the program, enabling the evaluators to assess change relative to a comparison group. Data were collected at three points in time: at the beginning and end of the school year, and again one year later.

For the collection of data, a mixed-method approach was used, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative component included pre-, post- and post-post program surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. These data were complemented by qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews with teachers, principals, program coordinators, and managers, as well as direct observations of program activities.

What the Evaluation Found

The evaluation found that DIP made a meaningful contribution to pupils’ knowledge of the cultural and religious traditions of the other group. Participants demonstrated improved familiarity with holidays, rituals, and places of worship, addressing significant baseline knowledge gaps that had been identified at the start of the program.

Beyond knowledge gains, the program also contributed to positive shifts in attitudes and intergroup relations. Many pupils reported increased interest in meeting peers from the other group, greater comfort in entering each other’s spaces, and a reduction in negative stereotypes. Teachers and principals reported strengthened professional relationships across schools and greater confidence in facilitating intercultural dialogue.

At the same time, the evaluation highlighted important contextual and implementation factors that influenced results. External events, including periods of heightened intergroup tension and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, affected both program implementation and outcomes. These findings reinforced the importance of sustained engagement, skilled facilitation, and institutional support when implementing dialogue initiatives in conflict-affected settings.

Reflections and Implications

By applying a rigorous quasi-experimental design alongside in-depth qualitative inquiry, the evaluation generated robust evidence on what DIP achieved, for whom, and under what conditions. It also produced actionable insights to inform program improvement and offered broader lessons for education and dialogue initiatives operating in divided societies.